David Ross.....

[CubinNY]

5 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

This feels like a pretty foundational misunderstanding of what WAR is doing. You've called it a "mythical" number as if there isn't a formula or that the data being input into the WAR formula isn't real. Actual performance on the field = WAR, regardless of whether it's baseball-reference WAR or fangraphs WAR. 

Next, while team WAR is a useful point of data, no one should believe WAR is some silver-bullet and people who understand WAR don't use it that way. You can be, for example, the 12th best team in terms of WAR and still not make the playoffs; variance exists. Variance is a real thing. Teams get hurt and teams have bad luck. You know who that luck affects far more so than others? Teams in that 10-20 range. Teams at the top end of the WAR track make the playoffs because they're really good teams and variance isn't enough to knock them off. The inverse for the bottom. Where variance gets ya is being in the middle; it's why a team like Arizona Diamondback (15th in bWAR in 2023) made the playoffs and the Cubs (12th in bWAR in 2023) didn't. Variance. Is. Real. 

The best players in a season accumulate the most WAR. Teams should prioritize adding the best players. If your broader point is that the Cubs are a big market team and at times, full-on-efficiency is not-always priority number 1? I'd agree! Big market teams should use their ability to overspend others to, at times, pay market rate or slightly above market rate to improve their roster for peak win totals. I don't know if the Cubs have it in themselves to do that. Perfectly acceptable argument. But the argument that WAR doesn't matter doesn't hold water.

who said it doesn't matter? 

[CubinNY]

Just now, squally1313 said:

Why

because the team needs offense. Obviously the next post is, you can't have a guy who can't catch. Yes, I know that and that's not what I'm saying. 

[squally1313]

Just now, CubinNY said:

because the team needs offense. Obviously the next post is, you can't have a guy who can't catch. Yes, I know that and that's not what I'm saying. 

Are you saying that a run created is more valuable than a run prevented?

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, CubinNY said:

who said it doesn't matter? 

You've done, essentially that, but stating that teams should just get the best players and ignore WAR. As if WAR doesn't matter when determining "the best players". 

You have also stated that the Cubs were the 12th best team and didn't make the playoffs as an argument against WAR. Again, as if total team WAR doesn't matter and something else does. 

You've called it a "mythical" number. As if there was no formula for the data or that the input data wasn't real. 

It's pretty easy to surmise your argument down to "WAR doesn't really matter" without you explicitly stating so and it feels more like an "anti-analytics" argument instead of an actual argument against WAR itself.

[CubinNY]

Just now, 1908_Cubs said:

You've done, essentially that, but stating that teams should just get the best players and ignore WAR. As if WAR doesn't matter when determining "the best players". 

You have also stated that the Cubs were the 12th best team and didn't make the playoffs as an argument against WAR. Again, as if total team WAR doesn't matter and something else does. 

You've called it a "mythical" number. As if there was no formula for the data or that the input data wasn't real. 

It's pretty easy to surmise your argument down to "WAR doesn't really matter" without you explicitly stating so and it feels more like an "anti-analytics" argument instead of an actual argument against WAR itself.

I haven't done essentially that. 

[CubinNY]

45 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

No, my point is that WAR should not be a primary consideration in building a team. Find the best players and don't get hung up how much a mythical number is worth in mythical dollars. Efficiency is not a goal, winning is the goal. 

I will gladly amend that to say the ONLY instead of Primary. 

[Derwood]

16 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

You do know that 50% is chance level. Thanks for making the argument but the study was already done by SBR.

Huh? 50% of a sample of teams that were all top 9 out of 30 is not "chance level".

[CubinNY]

6 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Are you saying that a run created is more valuable than a run prevented?

I'm saying context is important and baseball is a team sport. 

[CubinNY]

1 minute ago, Derwood said:

Huh? 50% of a sample of teams that were all top 9 out of 30 is not "chance level".

read what you wrote again. 

[sneakypower]

41 minutes ago, sneakypower said:

ownership presumably gives GM/PBO a limited budget of finite money and of course the goal for FO is going to be to maximize the dollars their allowed to spend

i mostly dislike Jed but this line of argument doesn't really make any sense

and the problem is Jed's terrible at actually spending efficiently; all the avenues for doing so have proven mostly fruitless

1. amateur draft: seemingly getting better last few years but just Steele ('14) and Nico ('18) are really the only significant contributors from 2014-2023 drafts, which is just such an abysmal performance from the org. in that dept (not including Happ here anymore who's already expensive)
    
2. rule 5 draft: [file not found]
    
3. IFA: Assad (ZiPS-U: projected 0.9 WAR), Morel (0.7) and Amaya (0.3) is basically all there is despite plenty of monetary efforts
    
4. trade: Busch, PCA, Brown
    
5. reclamation projects/bargain bin FA: Tauchmann, Leiter Jr., T. Miller
    
6. unproven/risky FA: Shota

i'd probably argue all but #4 are downright awful compared to the average org and then the rest of our biggest performing players (currently nobody is even projecting for 4 WAR) are all basically being paid market rate values

it all amounts to a FO who have performed capably at paying sticker price for some established decent players and more or less failed miserably at the rest of their job for about the past 5-6 years

Edited July 16, 2024 by sneakypower

[Jason Ross]

10 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I haven't done essentially that. 

I mean, just saying that doesn't mean it. It's pretty obvious you're attacking, very specifically, WAR. For example, your argument that "not all WAR is created equal" is that if you have a team who's already not great offensively, a player who's value is in defensive acumen wouldn't help that team very much. But that's not an "anti-WAR" argument, that' an "anti-anything" argument. If a team hit a lot of home runs already and doesn't play strong defense, would you say a team shouldn't add someone else who's value is generally tied in hitting home runs who plays poor defense? Then your argument has nothing to do with "WAR" and has everything to do with "don't be one dimensional". But note, you have very specifically made it about WAR.

If you want to make an argument that teams should diversify, then fine...that's good thing. Teams who diversify are harder to counter on a day-to-day basis. But all WAR is still "equal". For example, the Royals are a pretty bad hitting baseball team. They have a 95 wRC+ on the year, that's 20th best. They're the 2nd best defensive fWAR team, however. If they replaced 75 wRC+ and negative defender MJ Melendez in LF with a bad hitting, but really good defensive LF'er...they're still going to be better. A better defensive LF'er would help their pitching and help the team prevent more runs. Value is value.

[Rex Buckingham]

I do believe that WAR accumulated from defense is less valuable generally than WAR from offense. Ultimately, I think a team of average defenders with above average bats is going to win more games than a team of average bats and above average defenders. Maybe I'm dumb for believing that, and maybe it's bias based on watching the Cubs the last 2 years who seem to have been built as a defense-heavy team with a good number of solid but not spectacular bats.

[mul21]

28 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

You do know that 50% is chance level. Thanks for making the argument but the study was already done by SBR.

Fine.  100% of the teams outside the top 9 in team WAR did not win the world series.  100% is not chance level. I win your battle of semantics.

[squally1313]

7 minutes ago, Rex Buckingham said:

I do believe that WAR accumulated from defense is less valuable generally than WAR from offense. Ultimately, I think a team of average defenders with above average bats is going to win more games than a team of average bats and above average defenders. Maybe I'm dumb for believing that, and maybe it's bias based on watching the Cubs the last 2 years who seem to have been built as a defense-heavy team with a good number of solid but not spectacular bats.

I go back and forth in terms of what I actually believe and eventually just appeal to authority. How many thousands of hours were spent by smart people getting paid to do this to create the best possible all encompassing stat.

Also worth pointing out (maybe) that the Cubs are 17th in defensive value added since last year and 11th in offensive value added (a little driven by good baserunning). Nico and Dansby are elite. The rest are a smattering from above average (Happ) to bad (Morel). 

[Stratos]

1 hour ago, CubinNY said:

No, because you are not quoting what I wrote. In the playoffs, there is no correlation between WAR and winning. 

That's like saying after a month of play in the regular season that there's no correlation between hitting talent and BA and SLG because some bad hitter hit .350 in a month and some great hitters hit .220.

Run the same playoffs back 100 times and you'll find correlation.  Randomless/luck of small samples doesn't change that.

[Stratos]

1 hour ago, CubinNY said:

Not all WAR is created equal.  He had a team that was 12 in WAR last year and didn't make the playoffs. 

We don't have to use WAR as a measure then, because sure WAR may not encompass 100% of a player's value in theory.  My argument is essentually that every FO's job in terms of payroll is generally to maximize the talent on the team per the budget they're given.  I'm using WAR to measure talent, but yes there's some intangibles and other things to consider.

Jed's been very careful with money on guys like Taillon, Imanaga etc to maximize value but more careless with Mancini, Smyly, Barnhart etc.  He needs to be even more disciplined on value, not less.  We also need more surplus via good young players, which seems to be coming, and we'd have more this season without the injuries to almost all of our young pitchers.

Edited July 16, 2024 by Stratos

[Derwood]

Just for funsies, I kept going back through the champs and the White Sox in 2005 were the first team I found who was outside of the top 10 in fWAR who won the title. They were 20th (crazy)

[Rex Buckingham]

11 minutes ago, Derwood said:

Just for funsies, I kept going back through the champs and the White Sox in 2005 were the first team I found who was outside of the top 10 in fWAR who won the title. They were 20th (crazy)

and of course it took an absolutely legendary stretch from their starting pitching in the playoffs, a weird ALCS G2 thing where Pierzynski reached on a maybe dropped 3rd strike, big HRs from such legendary dongsmiths as Tadahito Iguchi (go ahead HR in G2 of ALDS), Joe Crede (go ahead HR in G1 of WS), Scott Podsednik (Walkoff HR in G2 of WS), and Geoff Blum (go ahead HR in the 14th inning of G3 of the WS)

[Andy]

54 minutes ago, Rex Buckingham said:

and of course it took an absolutely legendary stretch from their starting pitching in the playoffs, a weird ALCS G2 thing where Pierzynski reached on a maybe dropped 3rd strike, big HRs from such legendary dongsmiths as Tadahito Iguchi (go ahead HR in G2 of ALDS), Joe Crede (go ahead HR in G1 of WS), Scott Podsednik (Walkoff HR in G2 of WS), and Geoff Blum (go ahead HR in the 14th inning of G3 of the WS)

I no longer have any problem at all with the White Sox, but I really hated that team. In particular it drove me insane that Neal Cotts, Cliff Politte and Dustin Hermanson combined to give them what amounted to a peak-Pedro type season, and then 2 years later Politte and Hermanson were out of baseball and Cotts was sucking butt for the Cubs